“ON EARTH, PEACE,” 



New York State Bar Association 


TO 

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY, 

Nicholas II, 

EMPEROR OF ALL THE RUSSIAS, 

AND TO THE 

President of the United States, 


on the occasion and in commendation of the 

PEACE CONGRESS AT THE HAGUE AND RECOM¬ 
MENDING THE CREATION OF AN 


OF THE 


INTERNATIONAL COURT 








“ Ofl EARTH, PEACE 


9 > 



ADDRESSES 


OF THE 

New York State Bar Association , 


TO 

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY, 

Nicholas II, 

EMPEROR OF ALL THE RUSSIAS, 

AND to the 

President of the United States, 


ON THE OCCASION AND IN COMMENDATION OF THE 
PEACE CONGRESS AT THE HAGUE AND RECOM¬ 
MENDING THE CREATION OF AN 


INTERNATIONAL COURT 
















7 Mi-4-f' 


O HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY, 
NICHOLAS II., 

Emperor of all the Russias. 



The New York State Bar Association avails 
itself of this manner of expressing to Your 
Imperial Majesty its profound gratification at the 
action of Your Imperial Majesty in soliciting the 
attendance of representatives of all nations at a 
conference for deliberation on subjects of inter¬ 
national significance. It was indeed a happy 
inspiration that prompted so pacific and so mag¬ 
nanimous an act. The measure of its influence 
will not be unfolded for many generations, but 
posterity will surely point to the Congress at 
The Hague as the beginning of a new era in the 
world’s history, when Reason ascended the tribu¬ 
nal and nations paid court to her decrees. 

In view of the signal dissimilitude existing 
between the social conditions and customs of the 
Empire of Russia and those of the English 
speaking Republic of America, it will not appear 









4 


inopportune to direct attention to the fact that 
the occupation of the law in America is classed 
among the honorable and lettered professions. 
Men of that calling are sought for to assume 
the duties of the most responsible public posi¬ 
tions. More than three-fourths of those who 
have filled the important office of President were 
taken from the legal profession. The present 
incumbent of that position and his five immediate 
predecessors were barristers. This fact is not 
mentioned in disparagement of other avocations 
or professions but solely in explanation of the 
prominence of the membership of the Bar, which 
might otherwise seem obtrusive, in matters of 
international moment. 

The Bar Association of the State of New York 
is a Brotherhood of men whose lives are passed 
in the adjustment of legal controversies. Some 
of them sit in judgment on disputed claims, while 
the greater number appear before the bar of 
courts of justice in behalf of litigants to secure 
or defend personal rights. These walks, though 
they lead through labyrinths of litigation and 
confusion, are neverless paths of peace. The 


5 


lessons they teach are lessons of patience, con¬ 
stancy, impartiality and integrity. They conduct 
invariably to the conclusion that rules of law and 
equity are always adequate for the complete satis¬ 
faction of every rational demand made by one 
man or by any number of men upon others. 
Taught in this school it need hardly be subject 
for surprise that the members of such a profes¬ 
sion look forward eventually to the adjustment 
of all international differences by the same peace¬ 
ful methods that are now applied to personal con¬ 
troversies ; and, to that end, they hail with 
enthusiasm every indication that implies a move¬ 
ment, toward the fulfillment of the manifest 
destiny of Christian civilization—the substitu¬ 
tion of Right for Might in intercourse between 
nations. 

While the codification of a system of judi¬ 
cious international laws and the establishment of 
a court to expound and enforce them are not 
directly within the scope of the subjects suggested 
by Your Imperial Majesty for the consideration 
of the Congress, yet the Bar Association 
observes with especial pleasure that among the 


6 


last suggestions by Your Imperial Majesty 
for consideration at The Hague is one that bears 
chiefly upon the “ principle of the using of good 
“ offices of mediation and arbitration, to the end 
“ of preventing armed conflicts between nations.” 
As the Association has said in an address to the 
President of the United States, may not this 
subject for the deliberation of the Congress 
“ have hidden within it the germ of all the others, 
“ and, like the stone rejected of the builders, may 
“ it not be found to have been designed, and it 
a alone to be adapted, for the head of the corner 
“ of the projected structure, in comparison with 
“ which every other stone is of secondary sig- 
“ nificance?” 

On a former occasion, when the people of 
the United States were in imminent peril of 
entering into a physical conflict with a kindred 
people across the sea, the duty seemed to rest 
upon the New York State Bar Association of 
taking an active part in shaping public opinion 
in this country and of seeking a plan by which 
all international controversies that appear to be 
beyond adjustment by ordinary diplomatic agen- 


7 


cies, may be settled without resort to arms. A 
plan for an International Court was devised and 
submitted to the President by the Association. 
Subsequently some of the suggestions of the 
Association were found to be useful in the nego¬ 
tiation of treaties between the governments of 
Great Britain and the United States. In order 
that Your Imperial Majesty may be made familiar 
with this work of the Association, and especially 
to the end that that work may be beneficial to 
the deliberations of the Congress of the nations 
about to assemble at The Hague, there is 
appended hereto a copy of the Memorial to the 
President, together with its plan for an Inter¬ 
national Court and the address of a member of 
the Association, Dr. Chauncey M. Depew, now 
United States Senator, delivered before the 
Association in 1896. 

It is proper to add that the Bar Associ¬ 
ation is not wedded to any specific plan for 
an International Court. It will as gladly sup¬ 
port any other scheme for such a court which 
has in it the necessary elements of utility and 
stability. Its one aim and purpose is to secure 


8 


the universal recognition of the principle of 
arbitration and the early adoption by all nations 
of peaceful methods for the settlement of inter¬ 
national differences. It would not lessen its 
watchful care over peacefully disposed commun¬ 
ities while there lurks any danger from that 
element of society which still exists in them that 
thrives on others’ misfortunes and seeks to multi¬ 
ply them by its own overt acts. In other words, 
it would not disband the police force or unneces¬ 
sarily cripple it by reduction until it becomes 
clearly apparent that conditions have so far 
improved as to make such policy consistent with 
the best interests of the community. It would 
educate and assimilate conflicting elements as 
rapidly as consonant with existing conditions on 
the broad lines of Christian utility and philan¬ 
thropy. 

The Brotherhood of the legal profes¬ 
sion of the State of New York feels that the 
action of Your Imperial Majesty is a long step 
towards the fulfillment of this great purpose 
among the civilized powers of the world, and it 
extends to Your Imperial Majesty its unmeasured 


9 


congratulations upon the happy circumstance 
that has made Your Imperial Majesty the instru¬ 
ment, in the hands of Divine Providence, for the 
inauguration of so propitious and so grand a 
movement as is embraced in the conference of 
the nations on subjects of peaceful import. The 
Association also ventures earnestly to solicit 
Your Imperial Majesty’s powerful influence and 
active cooperation at the coming Congress in 
seeking the early organization of an International 
Court that may eventually hold jurisdiction over 
grave matters of international importance and 
thereby secure the happy consummation of all 
the worthy aspirations of Your Imperial Majesty 
in calling for conference the Christian Powers 
of the world. In holiday attire, with arms 
stacked, the battalions of the nations already 
mark time to the music of a new song, yet old 
as the Christian centuries, that Your Imperial 
Majesty has renewed in the hearts of the people 
of all nations: “On Earth, Peace, Good will 
toward men.” 

With assurances of high regard and distin¬ 
guished consideration, personally and on behalf 


IO 

of the membership of the Bar Association of 
the State of New York, we cordially subscribe 
ourselves, Your Imperial Majesty’s 

Very obedient servants, 

W. MARTIN JONES, 
WILLIAM D. VEEDER, 
EDWARD G. WHITAKER, 

Committee of the New York State 
Bar Association, 

Attested in behalf 
of the New York 
State Bar Associa¬ 
tion, at the Capitol 
in the City of Albany, 
N. Y., April 24th, 
1899. 

WALTER S. LOGAN, 

President. 

FRED’K E. WADHAMS, 

Secretary. 



O THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

The New York State Bar Association has 
learned with profound satisfaction that, in behalf 
of the Government of the United States, you 
have accepted the invitation of His Imperial 
Majesty, the Emperor of all the Russias, to send 
representatives to the proposed International 
Congress to be held at The Hague in the com¬ 
ing month of May. The Association, by the 
unanimous action of its membership in annual 
gathering, extends to you its congratulations 
and its unmeasured commendation for your 
prompt and cordial recognition of the signifi¬ 
cance of this event in the history of the world, 
and for your felicitous selection of able ministers 
to take part in the proposed Congress in behalf 
of the Republic under wise and judicious 
instruction. Your zealous cooperation with the 
Emperor of Russia in a movement which seems 
destined eventually to lead to the unfolding of 
events of preeminent purport to all civilized 









lands can but meet with the heart’s best desires 
of mankind everywhere. 

In this connection it appears not wholly inop¬ 
portune for the Association to invite attention 
to its previous efforts on the line of international 
arbitration. It was during the term of your 
predecessor in the honorable and arduous posi¬ 
tion that you are now tilling with such conspic¬ 
uous ability that, for a brief period, the nation 
seemed on the verge of hostilities with a people 
whose language and traditions are the language 
and traditions of the Republic. Wise statesman¬ 
ship averted threatened danger and these nations 
learned again the lesson, so often taught by pre¬ 
cept, that cool second thought is best thought, 
and that a properly constituted international court 
can best serve the ends of justice and, while 
preventing bloodshed, secure equity and preserve 
to both litigants national integrity and honor. 

In the midst of the exciting days preceding 
the adjustment of these international problems 
the annual session of the New York State Bar 
Association was held at the city of Albany. On 
invitation, one of its members, Dr. Chauncey M. 


*3 


Depew, now United States Senator from 
the State of New York, delivered the annual 
address. He chose for his subject the burning 
question of International Arbitration. His 
words found an answering echo in every heart 
and the Association promptly selected a com¬ 
mittee of its members to undertake the difficult 
duty of devising a plan for a Court for the 
settlement of international controversies that 
escape adjustment through the agency of dip¬ 
lomatic negotiations, and thereafter of accom¬ 
panying it with a Memorial on the subject to 
the President of the United States. The names 
of several members of this committee who 
gave the matter their careful consideration 
are familiar to you in the field of legal and 
political effort. The work was promptly done 
and was placed in the hands of the President in 
the month of April, 1896. Subsequently the 
members of the Association were gratified to 
learn that some of its suggestions and portions 
of the plan it recommended were followed in 
the negotiations of two treaties between Great 
Britain and the United States. 


14 


To the end that you may be familiar with the 
work of the Association and the plan it pro¬ 
posed for an International Court, there is 
appended hereto a copy of the address of 
Senator Depew and the Memorial to the Presi¬ 
dent, with the report of the committee and the 
plan referred to. Much has been said and written 
on the subject of international arbitration since 
the Memorial of the Association was handed to 
your predecessor, and the world is presumed to 
be wiser now than then. Yet it is doubtful if 
progress in the settlement of questions between 
nations that challenge more than diplomatic 
negotiations has been such as to make it desir¬ 
able materially to change the recommendations 
of the Association as contained in the papers 
herewith submitted to you. 

It is well to have in mind the fact that the 
plan proposed first contemplates the establish¬ 
ment of an International Court. Controversies 
may subsequently be submitted to it by treaty 
stipulations between nations whether represented 
on the Court or not. The Supreme Court of 
the United States consists of nine members 


i5 

—not of one member from each state of the 
Union—and yet the state that has no member 
on its bench, in a controversy where it is a party, 
receives equal justice with the state that can 
count one of the nine a citizen of itself. An 
established Court, composed of learned jurists, 
having experience in international problems, will, 
when proper rules of procedure have been pro¬ 
vided, and a Code of International Law has been 
adopted, mete out justice to litigant nations with 
as even a hand as the jurists of any civilized 
nation make awards to litigant citizens of the 
present day. 

It may possibly occur to you that the subject 
of this address is in a degree foreign to the mat¬ 
ters that are to receive attention at the coming 
Congress at The Hague. Disarmament, limited 
preparations for defense in times of peace and 
restrictions in methods and weapons of warfare 
in times of hostility are not International Courts 
or Tribunals of Arbitration. And yet peaceful 
negotiations between great political powers on 
subjects of such vital importance is a promise 
on the threshold of greater possibilities. The 


16 

admission of a mutual purpose on the part of 
two or more great nations to limit belligerent 
preparations and to draw lines of circumscription 
in the event of future hostile attitudes, is a 
harbinger of the early attainment of higher 
purposes that mark for the uplifting of human¬ 
ity and the better civilization of the nations. 
Moreover, one of the subjects presented by the 
Emperor of Russia for the consideration of the 
conference is “ the acceptance in principle of 
“ the using of good offices of mediation and 
“ arbitration, to the end of preventing armed 
“ conflicts between nations.” Though seemingly 
not the foremost purpose of the coming confer¬ 
ence, since it is the last of the propositions to be 
presented, may it not have hidden within it the 
germ of all the others, and, like the stone rejected 
of the builders, may it not be found to have been 
designed, and it alone to be adapted, for the head 
of the corner of the projected structure, in com¬ 
parison with which every other stone is of sec¬ 
ondary significance? 

The Association seeks the adoption of no 
specific scheme for a great International Court. 


17 

The plan of any other Association, or of any 
person, that has in it elements of utility'and sta¬ 
bility will as successfully appeal to the Brother¬ 
hood of the legal profession of the state of New 
York for its favor. Its voice and its efforts are 
for peaceful methods for the adjustment of all 
controversies. With prophetic vision it sees the 
rapid approach of a new era, and in it the Asso¬ 
ciation discerns a better understanding between 
nations, a more perfect recognition of the individ¬ 
ual interests of mankind and the pacific rule of 
Right, Reason and Mercy, a new Triumvirate 
among the powers of the world. Its one pur¬ 
pose now, having given expression to its senti¬ 
ment of gratification at the happy inspiration of 
a great Ruler to call together the nations of the 
world in peaceful conference and at the generous 
interest taken by you in such a gathering, is to 
solicit your powerful influence in support of a 
practical plan for a great International Court 
where Truth shall preside and the Right of 
Might shall be forgotten. 

With assurances of high regard and distin¬ 
guished consideration, personally and in behalf 


of the membership of the Bar Association of the 
State of New York, we cordially subscribe our¬ 
selves 

Your very obedient servants, 

W. MARTIN JONES, 
WILLIAM D. VEEDER, 
EDWARD G. WHITAKER, 

Committee of the New York State 
Bar Association, 

Attested in behalf 
of the New York 
State Bar Associa¬ 
tion, at the Capitol 
in the City of Albany, 
N. Y., April 24th, 
1899. 

WALTER S. LOGAN, 

President. 

FRED’K E. WADHAMS, 

Secretary. 



!9 


MEMORIAL 

OF THE 

New York State Bar Association to the President, 
Recommending' the Creation of an 

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION. 


TO THE PRESIDENT: 

The Petition of the New York State Bar Association 
respectfully shows : 

That, impelled by a sense of duty to the state and 
nation and a purpose to serve the cause of humanity 
everywhere, your Petitioner at its annual session held 
in the city of Albany on the 22nd day of January, 1896, 
appointed a committee to consider the subject of Inter¬ 
national Arbitration and to devise and submit to it a 
plan for the organization of a tribunal to which may 
hereafter be submitted controverted international ques¬ 
tions between the governments of Great Britain and the 
United States. 

That said committee entered upon the performance of 
its duty at once, and, after long and careful deliberation, 
reached the conclusion that it is impracticable, if not 
impossible, to form a satisfactory Anglo-American 
Tribunal, for the adjustment of grave international con- 



20 


troversies, that shall be composed only of representatives 
of the two governments of Great Britain and the United 
States. 

That, in order that the subject might receive more 
mature and careful consideration, the matter was referred 
to a sub-committee, by whom an extended report was 
made to the full committee. This report was adopted 
as the report of the full committee, and, at a Special 
Meeting of the State Bar Association called to consider 
the matter, and held at the State Capitol in the city of 
Albany on the 16th day of April, 1896, the action of the 
committee was affirmed and the plan submitted fully 
endorsed. As the report referred to contains the argu¬ 
ment in brief, both in support of the contention that it 
is impracticable to organize a court composed only of 
representatives of the governments of Great Britain and 
the United States, and in support of the plan outlined 
in it, a copy of the report is hereto appended and your 
Petitioner asks that it be made and considered a part of 
this Petition. 

That your Petitioner cordially endorses the principle 
of arbitration for the settlement of all controversies 
between civilized nations, and it believes that it is quite 
within the possibility of the educated intellects of the 
leading Powers of the world to agree upon a plan for a 
great central World’s Court that, by the common con¬ 
sent of nations, shall eventually have jurisdiction of all 
disputes arising between Independent Powers that can¬ 
not be adjusted by friendly diplomatic negotiations. 
Holding tenaciously to this opinion and, conscious that 
there must be a first step in every good work, else there 


21 


will never be a second, your Petitioner respectfully but 
earnestly urges your early consideration of the subject 
that ultimately—at least during the early years of the 
coming century—the honest purpose of good men of 
every nation may be realized in devising means for the 
peaceful solution of menacing disputes between civilized 
nations. Your Petitioner therefore submits to you the 
following recommendations: 

First: The establishment of a permanent Interna¬ 
tional Tribunal, to be known as “The International Court 
of Arbitration.” 

Second: Such court to be composed of nine mem¬ 
bers, one each from nine independent states or nations, 
such representative to be a member of the Supreme or 
Highest Court of the nation he shall represent, chosen 
by a majority vote of his associates, because of his high 
character as a publicist and judge, and his recognized 
ability and irreproachable integrity. Each judge thus 
selected to hold office during life or the will of the court 
selecting him. 

Third: The court thus constituted to make its own 
rules of procedure, to have power to fix its place of ses¬ 
sions and to change the same from time to time as 
circumstances and the convenience of litigants may sug¬ 
gest and to appoint such clerks and attendants as the 
court may require. 

Fourth: Controverted questions arising between 
any two or more Independent Powers, whether repre¬ 
sented in said “International Court of Arbitration” or 
not, at the option of said Powers, to be submitted by 
treaty between said Powers to said court, providing only 


22 


that said treaty shall contain a stipulation to the effect 
that all parties thereto shall respect and abide by the rules 
and regulations of said court, and conform to whatever 
determination it shall make of said controversy. 

Fifth: Said court to be open at all times for the 
filing of cases and counter cases under treaty stipulations 
by any nation, whether represented in the court or not, 
and such orderly proceedings in the interim between 
sessions of the court, in preparation for argument, and 
submission of the controversy, as may seem necessary, 
to be taken as the rules of the court provide for and 
may be agreed upon between the litigants. 

Sixth: Independent Powers not represented in said 
court, but which may have become parties litigant in a 
controversy before it, and, by treaty stipulation, have 
agreed to submit to its adjudication, to comply with the 
rules of the court and to contribute such stipulated 
amount to its expenses as may be provided for by its 
rules, or determined by the court. 

Your Petitioner also recommends that you enter at 
once into correspondence and negotiation, through the 
proper diplomatic channels, with representatives of the 
governments of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, 
The Netherlands, Mexico, Brazil and the Argentine 
Republic, for a union with the government of the United 
States in the laudable undertaking of forming an Inter¬ 
national Court substantially on the basis herein outlined. 

Your Petitioner presumes it is unnecessary to enter 
into further argument in support of the foregoing propo¬ 
sitions than is contained in the report of its committee, 
which is appended hereto and which your Petitioner has 


23 


already asked to have considered a part of this Petition. 
Your Petitioner will be pardoned, however, if it invite 
especial attention to that part of the report emphasizing 
the fact that the plan herein outlined is intended, if 
adopted, at once to meet the universal demand among 
English speaking people for a permanent tribunal to 
settle contested international questions that may here¬ 
after arise between the governments of Great Britain and 
the United States. 

While it is contended that it is wholly impracticable 
to form such a tribunal without the friendly interposition 
of other nations on the joint invitation of the Powers 
who unite in its organization, it is very evident that a 
most acceptable permanent International Court may be 
speedily secured by the united and harmonious action 
of said Powers as already suggested. Should obstacles 
be interposed to the acceptance, by any of the Powers 
named by your Petitioner, of the invitation to name a 
representative for such a court on the plan herein gener¬ 
ally outlined, some other equally satisfactory Power 
could be solicited to unite in the creation of such a court. 

Believing that, in the fulfillment of its destiny among 
the civilized nations of the world, it has devolved upon 
the younger of the two Anglo-Saxon Powers, now 
happily in the enjoyment of nothing but future peaceful 
prospects, to take the first step looking to the perma¬ 
nency of peace among nations, your Petitioner, repre¬ 
senting the Bar of the Empire State, earnestly appeals 
to you as the Chief Executive officer of the government 
of the United States, to take such timely action as shall 
lead eventually to the organization of such a tribunal 


24 


as has been outlined in the foregoing recommendations. 
While ominous sounds of martial preparations are in 
the air, the shipbuilder’s hammer is industriously weld¬ 
ing the bolt, and arsenals are testing armor plates, your 
Petitioner, apprehensive for the future, feels that delays 
are dangerous, and it urgently recommends that action 
be taken at once by you to compass the realization of 
the dream of good men in every period of the world’s 
history, when nations shall learn war no more and 
enlightened Reason shall fight the only battles fought 
among the children of men. 

And your Petitioner will ever pray. 

Attested in behalf of 
the New York State 
Bar Association at the 
Capitol in the City of 
Albany, N. Y., April 
16th, 1896. 

ED. G. WHITAKER, 
President. 

L. B. PROCTOR, 
Secretary. 




25 


REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE* 


To HON. WILLIAM D. VEEDER, 

Chairman Committee on International Arbitration of the 
New York State Bar Association , and Associates : 

Gentlemen: It was your pleasure at the first session 
of the committee to assign to us the duty of devising and 
presenting to you a plan for the creation of a Court of 
Arbitration to which may be submitted controverted 
international questions between the governments of 
Great Britain and the United States. 

It may hereafter be worthy of remembrance, and we 
therefore note the fact, that the first meeting of the 
committee was held on the 12th day of February, the 
anniversary of the birth of that great American patriot 
and statesman, Abraham Lincoln, and the first occasion 
of its celebration as a public holiday in the Empire State. 
It seems to us that it was a most fitting occasion for the 
inauguration of a movement looking to the permanency 
of peace among nations—a day so recently set apart as 
a memorial in honor of the birth of one who, though 
the central figure and the controlling genius in the most 
gigantic war of modern times, was a man who loved 



2 6 


peace better than he loved his-life, and whose memory 
savors of the sweetest inspirations of the brotherhood of 
the entire human family and of the fatherhood of an 
inscrutable First Cause. 

We have approached this duty with many misgivings. 
The interests involved in the undertaking are so 
momentous, the problem to be solved so stupendous, 
and the action of the committee, if finally crystallized 
into a system for the eventual abolition of bloodshed 
among the civilized nations of the world, is freighted 
with such vast possibilities, that we pause on the 
threshold of our endeavor, oppressed with a feeling of 
the inadequateness of man’s ability to compass such 
gigantic conclusion. Our duty, however, seems clear, 
and that is, to make the trial; and, in memory of blood- 
washed battlefields on every continent, and of the 
wrongs and of the rights of humanity everywhere, we 
apply ourselves to the undertaking with honest effort. 

In the outset we find ourselves confronted with a 
problem of no mean proportions. By the resolution 
under which the committee is acting, we are expected 
to devise a plan for the creation of an Anglo-American 
court, and international only as between the govern¬ 
ments of Great Britain and the United States, while no 
specific instructions have been formulated for our 
guidance. It is contended by some members of our 
Association,—men who are recognized among the ablest 
legal writers and practitioners of the state,—that it is 
quite within the practicable possiblities to create such a 
court, with only citizens of the two nations to constitute 
it, and that it is the duty of the committee to formulate 


27 


such a plan and present it to the Association. As a 
sub-committee, we find ourselves quite unable to par¬ 
ticipate in the belief that men of our own or of any 
profession, in any country, have attained to that ideal 
state of universal citizenship when, as members of a 
great International Tribunal, they can so forget kindred 
and country as to sit in judgment, with perfect impar¬ 
tiality, upon the sins of omission and of commission, of 
their own fatherland. “My country, right or wrong!” 
may, in the sweet millennial time toward which we trust 
the world is moving, give place to the wiser and more 
equitable declaration, “My country right, but never 
wrong!” but the boundary lines between nations are 
still too closely drawn, and the blood flows yet too 
warmly in the veins of the children of our fathers, to 
contemplate with perfect tranquillity the submission of 
controversies to interested litigants for impartial adjudi¬ 
cation. 

We therefore confess our inability to provide any plan 
by which a court composed of an equal membership of 
each government can be created to which such differ¬ 
ences can be submitted with the expectation that a 
judgment may be rendered by it that will be respected 
by both litigants. It would be very like two litigants 
in a subordinate court selecting an equal number of 
jurors or arbitrators from their respective friends, all of 
whom should be personally interested in the outcome of 
the litigation, and then expect to secure a majority of 
such court in favor of either party. 

It is manifest, that to arrive at any decision and render 
a judgment that litigants will respect, a majority of the 


28 


court must concur in its findings. In the first place, a 
case will not reach a court of the character contemplated 
until the representatives of the respective governments 
have exhausted every diplomatic effort to come to an 
amicable adjustment of the disputed question without 
further friction than grows out of the seemingly cordial 
correspondence carried on between the high function¬ 
aries of the foreign offices of the two nations. It is only 
when these agencies prove unequal to the emergency, 
when diplomacy is inadequate and friendly relations are 
strained, when—without an impartial tribunal compe¬ 
tent to settle the controversy—the time comes when 
passports are about to be exchanged, that steps will be 
taken to make a case for submission to such a court. It 
is evident, then, to the most unlettered citizen of either 
country, that under such circumstances no case can be 
successfully submitted to a tribunal composed of an 
equal number of citizens of the two countries and that 
neither nation will consent to the formation of a court 
in which it will have an unequal voice and influence. 
If this contention is true, then it must be conceded that 
it is futile to expect that any beneficial result can be 
secured from a court evenly balanced between two con¬ 
tending parties. 

The great question of international arbitration is too 
important, in the eyes of all good men of every civilized 
nation, to be lightly dismissed, and we feel that every 
honest endeavor should be put forth to devise some plan 
for it, even if we must abandon any scheme that con¬ 
templates the exclusion of other than English speaking 
people from participation in the deliberations of such a 


29 


court and final benefits to be derived from it. We 
cordially endorse the principle of arbitration, and we 
believe it practicable and possible. Holding fast to this 
tenet, we believe that the duty of the New York State 
Bar Association will not be fully performed until it has 
exhausted every method within its reach to bring about 
the creation of a tribunal to which may be submitted 
all grievances between civilized nations with the same 
confidence in the justice and equity of its final decrees 
as is now experienced in the submission of other conten 
tions to high courts of judicature among the nations of 
the world. 

While grave differences in matters of judicial pro¬ 
ceedings, social customs and modes of thought still exist 
between the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin races, and, to 
the casual observer, insurmountable difficulties appear 
to stand in the way of any closer relations than now 
exist between nations of so widely divergent antecedents, 
we cannot share these apprehensions, and we believe 
the hour has struck when these two great peoples may 
be brought into closer relationship. Standing almost on 
the threshold of a new century, in the closing hours of 
the old, and looking back over the years that are already 
compassed within it, we are forced to admit that, in the 
rapid strides that have been made in the sciences and in 
many useful discoveries and inventions during its years, 
improvements in the modes of legal procedure and in 
the methods of adjustment of menacing disputes, espe¬ 
cially between nations, have not kept pace with other 
civilizing forces. While steam and electric appliances 
have diminished distances, and have drawn nations into 


3 ° 

closer relations socially and commercially, standing 
armies still confront us, and the seas are resplendent with 
steel-plated battleships and brilliantly uniformed navies. 
We sit tUe-a-tUey while the knife looks out of our belt 
and a Winchester rifle or a needle gun stands behind 
each one of us. Can we change these accessories? That 
is the question. 

We hold to the opinion that these two great races 
have reached a stage of development when, in the inter ¬ 
ests of humanity, a grand effort should be made to create 
a tribunal that, in time, shall grow into a central inter¬ 
national court, to which shall be submitted all grave 
international questions that threaten the peace of nations 
and the prosperity of the world. As we look abroad and 
among the nations that are now in friendly intercourse 
politically, commercially and religiously, we see a grow¬ 
ing disposition on the part of the representatives of all 
these peoples to draw closer together in their general 
relations, and to minimize the evils that grow out of 
international disputes. 

Reviewing the situation, therefore, it appears to us, 
acting as a part of the Committee created by the State 
Bar Association, that we shall not have done our full 
duty in the premises if we do not present to you a plan 
by which more than the governments of the United 
States and Great Britain shall be brought into these 
closer relations, and eventually submit to an impartial 
court, controversies that cannot be adjusted by diplo¬ 
matic negotiations. Without waiting further instructions 
from the committee, we have, therefore, canvassed this 
subject from the high standpoint of the greatest good 


3i 


to the greatest number, and beg to submit to the com¬ 
mittee a plan which, if adopted, we feel will lead event¬ 
ually to the results desired. It must be conceded that 
this plan embraces more than has been referred to us, 
but, as the greater includes the less and only by the 
adoption of a plan that brings into these closer relations 
other nations than those using the English language, 
can we hope for the attainment of the ends sought for, 
we venture to give the result of our deliberations. We, 
therefore recommend: 

First: A permanent International Tribunal, to be 
known as “The International Court of Arbitration.” 

Second: Such court shall be composed of nine 
members, one each from nine independent states or 
nations, such representative to be a member of the 
Supreme or Highest Court of the nation he shall repre¬ 
sent, chosen by a majority vote of his associates, because 
of his high character as a publicist and judge and his 
recognized ability and irreproachable integrity. Each 
judge thus selected shall hold office during life or the 
will of the court selecting him. 

Third: The court thus constituted shall make its own 
rules of procedure, shall have power to fix its place of 
sessions, and to change the same from time to time as 
circumstances and the convenience of litigants may sug¬ 
gest, and shall appoint such clerks and attendants as 
the court may require. 

Fourth: Controverted questions arising between 
any two or more Independent Powers, whether repre¬ 
sented in said “International Court of Arbitration” or 
not, may be submitted by treaty between said Powers to 


32 


said court, providing only that said treaty shall contain 
a stipulation to the effect that all parties thereto shall 
respect and abide by the rules and regulations of said 
court, and conform to whatever determination it shall 
make of such controversy. 

Fifth: Said court shall be open at all times for the 
filing of cases and counter-cases under treaty stipulations 
by any nation, whether represented in the court or not, 
and such orderly proceeding in the interim between 
sessions of the court in preparation for argument and 
submission of the controversy, as may seem necessary, 
may be taken as the rules of the court provide for and 
may be agreed upon between the litigants. 

Sixth: Independent Powers not represented in said 
court but which have become parties litigant in a con¬ 
troversy before it, and by treaty stipulation have agreed 
to submit to its adjudication, shall complv with the 
rules of the court and shall contribute such stipulated 
amount to its expenses as may be provided for by its 
rules or determined by the court. 

To secure early consideration of this important ques¬ 
tion and harmonious action on the part of all citizens of 
this and other countries who favor the organization of 
such a tribunal, we also recommend: 

Seventh: That the President of the United States be 
respectfully memorialized, on behalf of the New York 
State Bar Association, and of such other Bar and other 
associations in this country as may be pleased to join 
therein at once to enter into negotiations with the repre¬ 
sentatives of the governments of Great Britain, France, 
Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, Mexico, Brazil and 


33 


the Argentine Republic for a union with the govern¬ 
ment of the United States in the laudable undertaking 
of forming an International Court substantially on the 
basis herein outlined. 

Eighth: That correspondence be opened immediately 
with other Bar Associations in the United States, the 
action of the Bar Association of the State of New York 
communicated to them, and that such associations and 
other organizations, societies and individuals be invited 
to join in said memorial to the president, in order that 
action by the government of the United States be 
secured at as early a date as seems practicable and con¬ 
sonant with such an enterprise and the dignity of the 
undertaking. 

Ninth: That correspondence be also entered into 
with like legal bodies in Great Britain, its colonies, and 
other countries believed to be interested in such a move¬ 
ment, having for its purpose the encouragement of every 
effort among civilized people to compass peace and 
strengthen the bonds of brotherly love among nations. 

In presenting this plan, we have not overlooked the 
fact that there are many obstacles to be overcome before 
a tribunal that may be entitled to rank as an Interna¬ 
tional Court can become a reality. We are not uncon¬ 
scious of the fact also, that many good citizens of our 
country, whose opinions are worthy of most careful 
consideration, maintain that a court of the character 
outlined in these recommendations is Utopian and 
impossible. Here is a broad field for argument, but we 
have endeavored to keep out of it as far as possible. We 
do believe some plan, be it the one we now present, one 


34 


at all similar to it, or one entirely remote from it, is 
possible, and will eventually be a consummation among 
the civilized nations of the globe, and that there is 
nothing more Utopian or impossible in such a dream 
than has appeared in many other dreams looking to a 
higher civilization among the children of men. 

To appreciate the possibilities that may attend upon 
the advent of a new generation and may ultimately enter 
into its history, one must hold close communion with the 
fictions of its predecessors. Evolutions are the products 
of the years and they wait on intellectual and moral 
forces equally with the material. The Utopia of one 
century is the Achievement of the next. Thomas More 
wrote fiction; Thomas Edison is leaving the imprint of 
fact on things material about him, and yet how very 
like are the lines of thought and study these men of 
genius pursued in their respective generations. A great 
International Court for the settlement of international 
disputes may be the Utopia of to-day, but none the less 
the Attainment of to-morrow. We shall not keep step 
with the progressive spirit of the century if we are not 
prepared to move on to much higher ground than we 
now occupy in the adjustment of legal controversies 
among men and nations. The suggestions we have 
made are but the invitation to go up higher. 

In these recommendations we have not attempted to 
enter into details in the formation of the proposed court, 
further than to provide for the number of judges to con¬ 
stitute it, and some essential matters that must neces¬ 
sarily be cared for in its organization. We have named 
nine Powers whose representatives we think should be 


35 

called to constitute this court. These nine Powers 
appear to be such as would most promptly recognize the 
importance of such a tribunal, and that would readily 
second the movement looking to its organization. We 
do not presume to exclude other nations or to intimate 
by our designation of those named, that representatives 
from other nations may not be just as worthy and just 
as satisfactory in every respect to enter into the com¬ 
position of this court, but, believing that in the selection 
of the members of such a court both Europe and 
America should be represented in as nearly equal parts 
and on as nearly equal terms as circumstances permit, 
we have designated the nine countries named in our 
seventh recommendation. We do not need to invite 
attention to the fact that only four of the nine nations 
specified by us are on the American continent, while five 
are in Europe; still it seems to us that this division is 
only a proper one, and that there can hardly be any fair 
criticism of our work on account of it. These nations 

i! 

are among the most enlightened and powerful on the 
two continents and unquestionably each one of them 
has a high court from which may be selected a most 
satisfactory representative to sit as an arbiter in a great 
central tribunal. 

The plan proposed by us for the selection of this court 
appears to be the most feasible and least objectionable of 
the several plans that have suggested themselves. The 
members of the highest courts of these different govern¬ 
ments are selected for their known ability and integrity 
and it is presumed that they are all chosen for life, or 
during good behavior. They are as far removed from 


3 ^ 

political influences as any body of men can well be, and 
it is the opinion of your sub-committee that no better 
plan can be devised for the formation of an impartial 
international tribunal than to have nine judges selected 
from nine such courts, who are beyond the reach of 
political influence and personal ambition. For the same 
reason, we have provided for a change in the court 
when, by reason of incapacity or other cause a member 
of the court who has been selected is found unable 
properly to represent his government in the sittings 
of the court. 

We are of the opinion that the selection of the court 
and the power to make changes in it from time to time 
should be left wholly to the Supreme Courts of the 
respective Powers represented in the International 
Court. There are many other methods that have sug¬ 
gested themselves, but not one of these seems so free 
from objection, as the one we have named in our second 
recommendation. Appointment by an Executive is open 
to the criticism of possible political influence, while the 
Supreme Court of a nation embodies the highest and 
profoundest judicial conception and is too remote from 
improper influences to yield to any pressure not designed 
to serve the highest purposes of so important an enter¬ 
prise. 

We ought also to explain that we believe it unneces¬ 
sary, in the formation of this court, for the governments 
composing it to enter, in advance of its construction, 
into any treaty stipulations in regard to it. We think 
the work of organization can be done by the legislative 
and executive branches of the several governments, 


37 


without resort to treaty negotiations. There may be no 
objection to a general treaty between these governments, 
looking to the formation of this court, but it appears 
to us that the time for treaty stipulations to be entered 
into is when two or more governments, either repre¬ 
sented in this court or outside of it, recognize its utility 
and accept it as their “peace maker,” or, in a specific 
case, without such full acquiescence, find themselves in 
a position where they are unable, by ordinary diplomatic 
negotiations, to settle a controversy that threatens 
amicable relations between them. Then such a treaty 
may be entered into and the permanency of the court 
recognized, or their specific controversy submitted to the 
tribunal that has already been provided by wise legisla¬ 
tion on the part of the several Powers represented in it. 

The wisdom of the plan we present may be questioned 
on the ground that it embraces too much, and that the 
time has not arrived when so many Powers may be 
prompted to entertain a project for a great central inter¬ 
national tribunal. We take occasion, however, to observe 
that this proposition is intended to meet the present 
almost universal demand for a permanent court for the 
settlement of controversies that may arise between the 
governments of Great Britain and the United States, 
while it is at the same time sufficiently flexible to be 
adapted to the necessities of other nations as they may 
learn its utility. It appears to us that a court designed 
to perform such an important office between two great 
nations ought not to contain a less number than nine 
members, as, in case of a dispute, two of the members 
would be interested as parties litigant, thus leaving che 


38 

decision in reality to be made by the remaining seven 
members of the court. To set the machinery of such a 
court in motion requires a treaty only between the two 
Anglo-Saxon nations,—Great Britain and the United 
States. By the terms of this treaty the two nations inter¬ 
ested in the creation of the court would need but to invite 
the other Powers named in our seventh recommendation, 
as an act of comity between friendly nations, to select 
seven members of the court in conformity with the fore¬ 
going propositions. It will be unnecessary for any other 
nation to join in such a treaty, as, by the act of the two 
English speaking Powers, and by virtue of the treaty 
stipulations between them, a permanent “International 
Court of Arbitration” would become an established fact. 
It is believed that, if such a court be once recognized and 
accepted by two such Powers, its ultility will force recog¬ 
nition and adoption by other nations seeking honorable 
adjustment of vexatious international questions. 

We also submit to you a form of memorial to be 
addressed to the President of the United States, in which 
are outlined the recommendations herein presented, and 
we recommend that this memorial be presented to the 
President without delay and that other associations and 
organizations be invited to join therein as contemplated 
in the foregoing recommendations. 

All of which is respectfully submitted by your sub¬ 
committee, at the State Capitol in the City of Albany, 
N. Y., April 16, 1896. 

W. MARTIN JONES. 
WALTER S. LOGAN. 


39 


To the New York State Bar Association : 

The foregoing Report of the Sub-committee of the 
Committee on International Arbitration appointed by 
the State Bar Association was duly submitted to the full 
Committee in session at the State Capitol in the city of 
Albany on the 16th day of April, 1896; and, on motion 
duly made, said report was endorsed and adopted as the 
report of the full Committee to the State Bar Associa¬ 
tion. It is therefore, herewith, respectfully submitted as 
the report of your Committee. 

State Capitol, Albany, N. Y., April 16th, 1896. 

WILLIAM D. VEEDER, Chairman, 

Brooklyn. 

WALTER S. LOGAN, New York . 

W. MARTIN JONES 

) Rochester, 

SHERMAN S. ROGERS, Buffal0 , 
JOHN I. GILBERT, Malone . 
CHARLES A. DESHON, NewYork . 
WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON, Katonah . 
EDWARD G. WHITAKER, NewYork . 
CHARLES M. DAVISON, Secretary, 

Saratoga. 

Committee. 

CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, New Yorkf 

JOHN B. MOORE, Columbia College. 

Advisory Members. 


40 


ADDRESS 

OF 

CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, LL. D. 

Delivered Before the New York State Bar Association at its Annual 
Meeting at Albany, N. Y., in January, 1896* 


Mr. President , a?id gentlemen of the Bar Association of 
the State of New York: 

You will not expect of me a technical discussion of 
constitutions, codes or statutes. The needs of the State 
or the country in these respects will be ably presented in 
the papers which will be read during your session. 

A meeting of the lawyers of this* great commonwealth 
has a profounder meaning than suggestions for amend¬ 
ments to laws or facilities in procedure. By virtue of 
our official distinction as officers of the court there 
devolve upon us public duties of the greatest importance. 
The larger the question and the greater the perils 
involved in its decision, the more clear is the mission of 
the Bar Association to give to the subject its attention 
and to the country the results of its calm deliberation. 
Never during the seventeen years of our existence has 
our meeting been held at a period so interesting and at 
the same time so fraught with dangers. 

Ours is a lawyer’s government. It was the agitation 
by the patriotic members of the profession which 
brought on the Revolutionary War. It was the con- 



41 


servative wisdom of the lawyers which framed the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States. Twenty of our twenty- 
four presidents have been lawyers, as were twenty-four 
of the fifty-four signers of the Declaration of Independ¬ 
ence, and thirty of the fifty-five members of the conven¬ 
tion which framed the Constitution of the United States. 
A large majority of the members of both houses of 
Congress, and of both houses of the Legislatures of the 
several States have always been and still are members 
of the profession. 

The checks and safeguards against revolutionary 
action which distinguish the institutions of the United 
States from those of all other democracies are the fruits 
of the wisdom and foresight of great minds trained to 
the law. Therefore the sentiment contained in Cicero’s 
famous maxim, “silent leges inter arma,” is specially 
pregnant for the hour. Cicero was the greatest lawyer 
of his time, and of the whole Roman period. Like most 
of the eminent members of the bar in our days, he was 
also an orator and a statesman of the foremost rank. In 
the forum and in the Senate he had fearlessly defended 
the right and assailed the wrong, and maintained justice 
and liberty. A craze for conquest had created armies. 
Wonderful victories had made famous generals, and 
triumphal processions had inflamed and intoxicated the 
people. He saw what no other statesman of his period 
did, that beside the captive chained to the chariot of the 
conqueror as it proudly rolled along the Appian Way 
with the acclaim of the multitude, stalked also in chains 
the figure of Roman liberty. This wrung from him the 
sentence which has become one of our legal maxims. 


42 


Caesar crossed the Rubicon. The army and the people 
gave him dictatorial power. The patriots assassinated 
him. The army executed the patriots. The successful 
general and dictator instructed his soldiers to pursue and 
kill the great lawyer, not for any crime, but for words 
spoken in debate in the Senate of Rome for the Republic, 
and against its arch enemy. When Cicero’s throat was 
cut upon the highway by the soldiers of Antony, the 
body of Roman Law, which protected life and property, 
and judicially decided rights and remedied wrongs, and 
which had been five hundred years in slow and laborious 
construction, was buried with his blood. From that 
time until the Dark Ages the will of the autocrat of the 
hour was the law of the world. It devastated provinces. 
It depopulated countries. It made deserts of vast terri¬ 
tories. It consigned to untimely graves with every form 
of horror and suffering untold millions of the human 
race. The falling temple of liberty carried down in its 
ruins civilization, law, learning, art, humanity and 
religion. Centuries passed by, all dedicated to war until 
the church arrested its savagery for the moment by the 
truce of God. This declaration of the pious and 
renowned Bishop of Aquitaine is the foundation of the 
jurisprudence of modern times. By the Truce of God, 
for four days in the week one simple law of life and 
liberty prevailed. The traveler could be upon the high¬ 
way, the merchant dispose of his goods, the artisan work 
in his factory, the farmer follow his plough, the house¬ 
wife and the maiden be afield garnering the harvest, 
without fear of murder, outrage, conscription or robbery. 
But, for ages yet to come, under the necessities for pro- 


43 


tection, induced by perpetual wars, Europe was divided 
into masters and slaves,—the masters the feudal lords, 
and their armed retainers,—the slaves, the tillers of the 
soil, the artisans and laborers. The tradition and educa¬ 
tion of the ages that rights could only be established 
and wrongs could only be redressed by the sword, 
created the Law of the Sword. For hundreds of years 
all disputes were settled by the gauge of battle. Titles 
to real estate, difficulties as to boundary lines, questions 
of contract and of.tort, matters of heritance and the set¬ 
tlement of estates were submitted to private combat for 
“justice.” The courts met at the appointed places. The 
judges sat clothed in their robes of office. The criers 
of the court announced the case, and the litigants 
entered the lists armed for the fray. The rules for the 
combat were as well established as the rules of trial are 
in the courts of to-day. The theory over it all and under 
it all was that the “God of Battles” would be on the right 
side. Cromwell, who was intensely religious, fought for 
his faith. Napoleon, who had no religion, fought for 
glory. Each declared that God was on the side of the 
strongest battalions. The Almighty in these judicial 
combats evinced his abhorrence of them by so far with¬ 
holding His interposition that the most skilled athlete 
and the best trained duellist always succeeded. So strong 
is the power of custom that this right to appeal to private 
combat by the dropping of a glove before the judge that 
the arbitrament of arms actually remained a part of the 
Statute Law of England’s colonies in America until the 
independence of our Republic—and of England herself 
until 1818. Nay, more, it survived in active practice 


44 


until fifty years ago, in the form of the duel, in nearly 
every part of this country. No man could retain his 
position at the bar or in society who would refuse a 
challenge. In the ante-bellum days hundreds of brilliant 
young lawyers who went to the South to try their for¬ 
tunes were challenged by the best shots of the local bar, 
who wanted to remove the dangerous competition of 
their Yankee rivals; and many of them fell before the 
bullets of the trained duellists to whom, below the Mason 
and Dixon line, pistol practice was an essential part of 
a “gentleman’s” education. 

The best evidence of healthy public sentiment, or 
rather of Christian civilization and enlightenment in the 
law, is that to-day the man who loses caste in the duel 
is not he who refuses, but he who challenges. In every 
State *in the Union the duellist has become by statute a 
felon, and the most striking instance of any of the change 
in public sentiment is that juries never hesitate to con¬ 
vict him of a crime. Public sentiment now declares that 
true courage hands the duellist or would-be duellist over 
to the police, and appeals to the law for the adjustment 
of difficulties. 

While this healthful advance in civilization and this 
undoubted public sentiment supporting it, mark the new 
relations between individuals, there has been little if 
any progress in the peaceful, lawful and orderly settle¬ 
ment of international disputes, involving communities. 

The barbarous, murderous and uncertain methods of 
the ancient and the medieval periods still prevail. The 
alarms of war agitate a world. The columns of our 
daily papers are filled with cables and telegrams 


45 


announcing the rage of nations and the imminence of 
their flying at each other’s throats. The battle blood 
which is the inheritance of the ages is aflame for fight. 

Only one power keeps the nations of Europe from 
instantly declaring war. The bankers and business men 
have become the arbiters between nations. In modern 
conflicts, so vast and expensive are the preparations for 
and operations of war that the longest purse wins. 
Neither Germany, nor France, nor Austria, nor Italy, 
nor Russia, nor Spain can hurl their armies at each 
other and equip their navies for fight without the con¬ 
sent of the great bankers of the world. The only two 
nations which may be said to be free from this thralldom, 
because of their wealth, their commerce and credit are 
the United States and Great Britain. “War,” said Eras¬ 
mus, “is the malady of princes.” He might have added, 
the danger of Republics. 

The spirit of war—largely the inheritance of the 
dynastic ambitions of royal houses—is the chief incentive 
to the employment of the best inventive genius for 
engines of destruction. Improvements in naval archi¬ 
tecture are first for war and next for commerce. If 
armor is made which will resist a new shell, there follows 
the gun that will fire *the shot which will pierce the 
armor. If a “magazine” is constructed which will 
destroy its score of human beings in as many seconds, 
along comes the machine gun which will kill its hundreds 
of fathers, brothers, sons and husbands in the same time. 
The resources of chemistry and electricity are exhausted 
to discover the implements by which great armies may 
be annihilated in an hour. 


46 

The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated 
how easy it is to arouse the fighting blood among our 
own people. A generation has come upon the stage 
since the Civil War who are eager for battle. 

The greatest ministers and leaders for peace whom I 
ever met were the generals whose fame fills the world, 
and whose victories were in our civil strife—Grant and 
Sherman and Sheridan. During the whole of their lives 
after the war they were the apostles and preachers of 
peace. 

An Eastern writer says: “We have furnished a great 
and famous soldier whom your historians scarcely men¬ 
tion, but who ought to rank above Caesar or Hannibal or 
Napoleon, and his name and title are Genghis Khan. To 
him belongs the unequaled glory of having slain 
18,400,000 human beings in eleven years.” He had a 
definite object, which was to destroy cities and villages 
and make the whole world a pasture field for nomadic 
tribes. Attila, the Scourge of God, on the other hand, 
made it his proud boast that no grass ever grew upon 
the fields which had suffered the hoof beats of his horses. 
How much greater, how much nobler, how much more 
humane was the sentiment of the philosopher who said 
that “the true benefactor of mankind is the one who 
makes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew 
before!” Napoleon, at St. Helena, made this apologetic 
remark: “I only killed a million of men in all my wars.” 
He did not mention the ten millions who died from star¬ 
vation in the wildernesses which he left behind him. 

The strongest evidence of the fervor and force of this 
sanguinary sentiment among us to-day is the action of 


47 


Congress upon the President’s Venezuela Message. By 
the Constitution of the United States the war power 
belongs to Congress, and yet the Senate and House of 
Representatives with unanimity and hot haste, rushed to 
record their approval of what they believed at the time to 
be a declaration of war, and their chaplain appealed 
to the Prince of Peace with this marvelous invocation: 
“O Lord, may we be quick to resent anything like an 
insult to our nation; so may Thy Kingdom come and 
Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Amen/’ 
One does not know, in the presence of such a travesty 
upon the Sermon on the Mount, whether to say “Good 
Lord?” or to exclaim “Great Scott!” 

There are to-day in Europe—on a so-called peace foot¬ 
ing—seven millions of men in arms. Every laborer, as 
he goes to his shop or to his work in the fields, carries 
upon his back and keeps upon his back during the whole 
of his day a fully armed soldier. The combined war debts 
of these governments are sixteen thousand millions of 
dollars. Such are the burdens under which anarchy 
grows and socialism thrives, and populations seek by 
emigration to the wilds of Asia and the wastes of Africa 
and the tropical countries of South America, as well as 
to our own more favored land, an escape from intolerable 
conditions. 

There are occasions when war is both right and neces¬ 
sary, and a nation must embark upon it without counting 
the consequences, but the issue of battle is never certain, 
nor does the arbitrament of war always end in right or 
justice. The struggle between Prussia and Austria for 
supremacy in the German Empire was decided not by the 


48 


merits of the case, but by the needle gun in the hands of 
the Prussians used against the old-fashioned musket of 
the Austrians. To his everlasting honor the old king of 
Prussia, the first emperor of Germany, a soldier born in 
camps and whose life was practically passed in arms, 
gave his best efforts for the maintenance of the peace of 
Europe. Napoleon the Third, to sustain a falling dynasty, 
declared war, and lost his throne, deprived France of two 
of her fairest provinces and put upon her a load of debt 
involving grinding taxation. 

Our war of 1812 was right if our dispute with Great 
Britain and our demand for fair treatment and justice 
could not be settled by arbitration. It is a curious and 
impressive fact that the purpose for which that war was 
made was not gained by the war. The casus belli was 
not considered in the treaty of peace, but was settled 
afterwards by .arbitration. The Civil War might have 
been averted at one time by payment of a proper indem ¬ 
nity to the owners of the slaves. In the passions of the 
hour that period passed by, and the slaves were freed 
and the Republic held together by our great civil strife. 
But the cost of the war was half a million people killed, 
a million crippled and wounded, the devastation and 
destruction of all the material interests and visible prop¬ 
erty of ten States; and the loss in money of four thou¬ 
sand millions of dollars on the one side and as much on 
the other. The Republic united and free is worth all 
that it cost both in blood and treasure, and much more; 
and yet, had the South been as strong in credit and 
resources, with as large an available fighting population 
as the North, it is doubtful whether a war between men 


49 


of the same blood, each thinking they were fighting for 
the right, would not have ended in a drawn battle. 

The argument has recently been advanced by Bis¬ 
marck, by the London Times, and only the other day by 
a distinguished judge speaking to a company of students, 
that without war the moral tone of a people deteriorates, 
and they lose a fine sense of patriotism and a keen appre¬ 
ciation of national honor. At the breaking out of the 
Civil War, of the thirty millions of people in the United 
States there were not twenty-five thousand who had had 
any actual experience of campaigns; and these few 
veterans had only served in the Mexican War of twelve 
or fifteen years before. Ours was pre-eminently a peace¬ 
ful population. For three generations the blood of the 
people had not been stirred by a great conflict nor them¬ 
selves called to arms. And yet when the flag was fired 
upon, and the existence of the Republic was at stake, 
there was a popular uprising and enlistment unknown in 
ancient or in modern times. There were in this country 
three millions of men in arms on the one side or the 
other. At Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, Chickamauga, 
Vicksburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, 
the bloody Battle of the Wilderness, and Sherman’s 
March to the Sea, were exhibited valor, heroism and 
patriotism of a higher and nobler type than any other 
age can boast. The lawyers did their best to bring about 
a peaceful settlement between the North and the South; 
but when the armed struggle came, they enlisted for the 
war, in proportion to their number, in far greater ratio 
than any other profession, calling or vocation. Nearly 
all the volunteer officers who became brigadier and 


5 ° 

major-generals, and won distinction equal to that 
attained by the gallant graduates of West Point, were 
members of the profession of the law. No lawyer better 
fulfilled his duty to his profession, lived up to a higher 
ideal in politics and in public life, or performed more 
heroic deeds upon the battlefield than that brave and 
distinguished member of our Association who died within 
the last week, Gen. Francis C. Barlow. 

Now is the time for the profession to perform a great 
work upon the lines of the lawyers of the centuries in 
promoting international arbitration. The present dis¬ 
pute between the English-speaking races which is 
agitating the world calls for both practical wisdom and 
legal acumen for its solution. There is no dissent in 
this country from the Monroe Doctrine as promulgated 
by President Monroe and interpreted by Jefferson, Mad¬ 
ison, Webster and Calhoun. Alexander Hamilton, the 
greatest lawyer of the Revolutionary period, and one of 
the most creative geniuses of our country, stated this 
rule for our guidance in the Federalist with that clear¬ 
ness of insight into the future by which he stamped upon 
our institutions the elements of conservatism and per¬ 
petuity. No European aggressions upon the Americas 
will be permitted by the United States which will 
endanger our safety or subject our sister republics to 
European despotisms. Yet any one who studies the 
Monroe Doctrine will see how in each individual case, 
except where there is a flagrant violation, like the French 
invasion of Mexico, the applicable interpretation of it 
should be the subject of judicial determination. 

The feeling in the United States against Great Britain 


5 * 

is more easily aroused than against other countries for 
many reasons. In the first place, we are blood relations, 
and family quarrels are always hasty and fierce. Our 
battles of the Revolution and of the War of 1812 have 
been with England. The attitude of her government 
during our Civil War was specially irritating, and dis¬ 
putes about boundary lines and fisheries have frequently 
arisen. The diplomatic correspondence of her ministers, 
especially of those who have not visited America, is often 
characterized by a spirit of paternal chiding or coddling 
which we rightfully and vehemently resent. But while 
this feeling has not abated with us, there has come into 
power in Great Britain—and we have scarcely noticed it, 
indeed it has only been brought strongly and convinc¬ 
ingly to our attention by the recent terrific outbreak 
against Germany—a force unknown and unheard of at 
the time of George III, or the War of 1812, or even our 
Civil War. It is the all-powerful democracy of Great 
Britain, which universal suffrage has brought to the 
front, and which is to-day the real power in the British 
Islands. This force is cordial in its friendship for our 
people and country. There are no obstacles in the way 
of a peaceful adjustment, upon a permanent basis, of all 
present and future difficulties between the democratic 
spirit—the people—of the United States and the demo¬ 
cratic spirit—the people—of Great Britain. 

Unless we should be driven to it by a stress of circum¬ 
stances not now perceptible, or by difficulties and dangers 
which could not be averted in any other way, we do not 
want a great standing army. It would be a menace to 
our peace, a menace to capital and a menace to labor. 


s* 

In a Republic a dictator always stands in the shadow of 
a large regular army. 

We require a navy sufficiently large to protect Amer¬ 
ican citizens and American commerce in any part of the 
globe. We should have our ports in condition to be 
defended in the possible, but scarcely probable, event of 
war with a foreign nation. But to have a navy on a 
footing with the great sea powers of Europe, and a stand¬ 
ing army equal on a peace footing to the emergency of 
sudden hostilities, involves just the dangers of foreign 
entanglements against which Washington warned his 
countrymen in his farewell address. The maintenance 
of this force in idleness would take permanently half a 
million of youth from our industries, and the Federal 
government would either have to meet an enormous 
annual deficit of revenue by piling up debt, or resort to 
the process of direct taxation upon the people. 

The United States is the only nation so situated that 
it can with honor and safety move upon the pathway of 
peace for an International Court of Arbitration. North 
of us lies Canada with its vast territories—larger in area 
than the United States—but with a sparse population of 
some five millions of people. It seeks no war. It wants 
no hostilities and no disagreements with our Republic. 
It is anxious for commercial union. Political union will 
follow whenever we desire to extend the invitation. So 
there is no danger from Canada. To the south of us is 
Mexico, with only twelve millions of people, of whom ten 
millions are Indians, uneducated and degraded. We need 
fear nothing from Mexico; nor do we want her. That 
population incorporated into our political system would 


S 3 


corrupt our suffrage. The presidency of the United 
States and the political control of the Republic might be 
decided by the Indians of Mexico. Farther away are the 
Republics of the Isthmus of Darien and of South 
America. The perpetual wars between these nations and 
the constant internal revolutions and feuds which have 
characterized them have left that part of the Western 
Hemisphere at the end of three hundred years, though 
its climate, soil and resources, are as attractive and great 
as those of the north, with a scattered population of fewer 
then twenty millions; two-thirds of whom are Indians 
and half-breeds. We have no fear of them. And now 
look at Europe. 

It is three thousand miles across the ocean from the 
nearest seaport of any European power to any seaport 
of the United States. Our country has seventy millions 
of people, and seventy billions of dollars of accumulated 
wealth. So great has been our prosperity, because of one 
hundred and two years of peace and only five of war, so 
free have we been from the strifes which have exhausted 
the resources of Europe that the taxing power of the 
government has not yet touched for any purpose the 
real and personal property represented in these seventy 
thousand millions of dollars of accumulated wealth. 
According to the census of 1890, we have 9,200,000 
fighting men. The experience of the Civil War has 
shown that from them could be drafted, mobilized and 
instructed in three months three millions of soldiers. All 
the transports and navies of the world could not land 
upon our shores an army which could march 100 miles 
from the sea coast, or even return to their ships. With 


54 

all the world in arms against us, the vast interior of our 
continent, except in its industrial and economic phases, 
would know nothing of the trouble and never see a for¬ 
eign uniform—except on a prisoner of war. Secure in 
our isolation, supreme in our resources, unequaled in 
our reserves, and free from dangerous neighbors, we 
occupy among the nations of the globe a position so 
exalted and safe that to compare us with other countries 
would be absurd. The statesman or the politician who 
really fears for the safety of this country is a fool. The 
statesman or politician who does not fear (because he 
knows better), and who yet preaches of our weakness 
and our vulnerability, is a demagogue, and he insults the 
intelligence of the American people. This great reser¬ 
voir of force for all purposes—the American Republic 
—this mightiest engine of war and most beneficent power 
for peace on the face of the globe, can extend the right 
hand of fellowship to warring brethren across the 
Atlantic and promulgate with honor and dignity a 
scheme for an international tribunal, and lead in the 
movement. 

The first crisis in our national history came soon after 
the machinery of our government was put in motion by 
the first president, General Washington. The people 
demanded a war with England, to help France, when we 
had neither arms nor credit nor money, and France was 
powerless and almost bankrupt in her revolutions and 
her internal and international complications. The United 
States needed commerce and trade; needed the freedom 
of the seas; needed the control and improvement of its 
rivers and inland lakes for the development of its 


55 


resources. It required peace, rest, and opportunity to 
attract immigration, to build its States, to utilize its vast 
water power, and to bring out its exhaustless treasures 
from field, forest and mine. The task for peaceful settle¬ 
ment was entrusted to the head of the bar of the United 
States, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay. 
With infinite tact, with marvelous wisdom, with judicial 
candor and legal acumen he performed his immeasurably 
great duty. For the first time in treaties between nations 
was inserted, through his influence, a declaration for the 
adjustment of all disputes between the United States and 
Great Britain by arbitration. Under the beneficent work¬ 
ing of this principle, nearly one international case a year 
has been settled during the past eighty years. These 
cases have excited no comment, because it is only war 
which illumines the sky, and, in the baleful conflagration 
which consumes peoples and properties, attracts the 
attention of the world. General Grant held it to be a 
crown as glorious as that of Appomattox that he brought 
about the Genevan arbitration under this clause of the 
treaty of Chief Justice Jay. The people of the English- 
speaking nations must get beyond the narrow idea of 
accidental arbitration for each case as it may occur, with 
its semi-partisan organization, and agree in constituting 
a permanent international court. 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island had a difficulty which 
in other cases would have led to war or intestinal feuds. 
It was settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. 
Missouri and Iowa would be at each other’s throats, but 
the Supreme Court of the United States calmly consid¬ 
ered the questions at issue between them, and its judg- 


56 

ment was accepted. The question of the liberty of Dred 
Scott went to this tribunal in the midst of the most 
passionate political discussions of the century. The 
decision of the court was against the dominant sentiment 
of the hour, but it was accepted until legislation and con¬ 
stitutional provisions remedied the difficulty. The great 
debate over the income tax divided sections and parties, 
and in the arena of politics the matter was pregnant with 
political revolutions. The Supreme Court decided the 
question one way, and one judge of the nine, changing 
his opinion upon reflection, reversed the judgment. The 
country at once accepted the decision as the verdict of 
justice and of right. 

Had there been an international Court of Arbitration 
in the Venezuelan matter, Lord Salisbury could not have 
pleaded that there was a boundary line embracing terri¬ 
tory so long and unquestionably held by the British that 
they could not in honor submit the question of their title 
to the court. Both the English and the Americans have 
been educated to believe that though anybody may make 
a claim upon any property, the court can be relied upon 
to dismiss the complaint, if it is unworthy of being enter¬ 
tained, or disavow jurisdiction, should there be any 
doubt, or if it considers the matter, to adjust it upon the 
eternal principles of justice and right. The United States 
and Great Britain have the same common law. Their 
legislation has been for the past fifty years along similar 
lines of progress and liberty. Their courts and methods 
of procedure are alike in most of their characteristics. 
The cases reported and principles settled in each country 
are quoted as authority in the courts of the other. Amer- 


57 


ican lawyers have found it not difficult to become great 
in the English forum, and English, Scotch and Irish law¬ 
yers have been successful at the American bar. We 
speak the same language, we read the same Bible and the 
interests over which we clash are always susceptible of 
judicial construction and adjudication upon principles 
which we mutually understand. It is possible for these 
two great countries, out of this present difficulty to evolve 
a tribunal of international law and justice, which shall 
be in perpetual session, whose members shall be selected 
with such care, whose dignity shall receive such recog¬ 
nition and whose reputation shall be so great that each 
nation can submit to it any question in dispute and bow 
to its decision with safety and honor. 

We, the lawyers of the United States, and our brethren, 
the lawyers of Great Britain, faithful to the traditions of 
our profession and the high calling of our order, can 
agitate and educate for the creation of this great court. 
We recall that even in the days of almost universal assent 
to the divine authority of kings, Justice Coke could 
boldly challenge and check the autocratic Charles, with 
the judgment that the law was superior to the will of the 
sovereign. Christian teachings and evolution of two 
thousand years, and the slow and laborious development 
of the principles of justice, and judgment by proof 
demand this crowning triumph of ages of sacrifice and 
struggle. The closing of the nineteenth, the most benefi¬ 
cent and progressive of centuries, would be made glorious 
by giving to the twentieth this rich lesson and guide for 
the growth of its humanities and the preservation and 
perpetuity of civilization and liberty. 


58 


EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL ADDRESS 

OF 

Edward G. Whitaker, President of the New York State 
Bar Association, delivered before the Association 
in January, 1897: 

The next attempt made by our Association during the 
last year was to impress upon the peoole the beneficial 
results that would flow from the abolition of war, and a 
substitution in its place of arbitration. This was made 
pursuant to a resolution adopted at our last meeting. 
The moving cause was a sudden and unexpected possi¬ 
bility of war between the United States and Great 
Britain. 

It brought the question of war or peace sharply before 
the people. And the lawyers, true to their peaceful 
instincts and sense of justice and humanity, were the 
first to realize that a war between the two great Anglo- 
Saxon races would be a calamity. A committee upon 
International Arbitration was appointed. It had several 
meetings, prepared a memorial to the President, and a 
plan for an International Court, submitting them to a 
special meeting of the Association, called for that pur¬ 
pose, at which meeting the memorial and plan were 
approved and commended. The plan and memorial were 
submitted to the President and Secretary of State by a 
committee who went to Washington for the express 


59 


purpose. The reception of your committee by the Pres¬ 
ident was most cordial. He expressed himself as deeply 
impressed with the unselfish and patriotic efforts of the 
Association, and intimated that the suggestions would 
be of great practical interest to the Government. This 
memorial and plan have been beautifully printed and 
distributed to the leaders of thought and leading states¬ 
men and divines of the civilized world, and have received 
nothing but the most favorable comment. 

The question of international arbitration is so stu¬ 
pendous, its consequences involving almost a transforma¬ 
tion of governments, and an obliteration of traditions of 
peoples, that at first blush even the conception of such a 
scheme appears bold in the extreme, and an attempt at 
consummation by comparatively a few lawyers unpar- 
donably audacious. But we should remember that every¬ 
thing must have a beginning, and to whom could such a 
beginning be more appropriately committed than to the 
lawyers? That this is true is fully proved by history. 
The lawyer, as we know him to-day, is of comparatively 
recent origin. Not until the middle ages did he appear 
in his present character. And so suddenly did his influ¬ 
ence burst upon Europe that his coming was almost like 
an apparition. He came at a time when the whole of 
Europe was a battelground for private feuds, when 
might made right, when to desire and take by force were 
similar and simultaneous impulses; when brute force 
was the sole test of justice. And with his coming came 
a new power into the world. The steel-clad baron and 
his retainers were awed by terms they had never before 
heard and did not understand, such as precedent, prin- 


6 o 


ciple, pandects, rescripts and the like. While the church 
was the emissary of peace, she was to a great extent the 
mother of strife. The great and real pacifier of the world 
was the lawyer. His parchment took the place of the 
battlefield. The flow of his ink checked the flow of 
blood. His quill usurped the place of the sword; he 
overcame the battleax with a mere feather. His whereases 
and aforesaids became more formidable than missiles of 
war. His legalism dethroned barbarism. His victories 
were victories of peace. He impressed upon individuals 
and communities that which he is now endeavoring to 
impress upon nations, that there are many controversies 
that it were better to lose by arbitration than to win by 
war and bloodshed; that the greatest victories 'are those 
of truth and justice, gaining their lustre, not from the 
number slain, but from the number saved. 

In our efforts therefore for peace among nations we 
are simply endeavoring to extend our traditional peace¬ 
ful influences. Our example is being followed by the 
lawyers of this country and Great Britain, and let it be 
remembered with pride that it was the lawyers of tnis 
Association who first put in motion the unconquerable 
force of the united American and English bar, and that 
the plan suggested by this Association for settlement of 
international controversies has been practically followed 
in the essential features by the proposed treaty which 
has been submitted between England and America for 
an international tribunal. 


ACTION OF THE 

NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 


AT ITS 


Annual Session Held at Albany, N. Y., January 
18, 1899. 


On motion duly made by the honored and ven¬ 
erable William Barnes, of Albany, the action of 
the Czar of the Russias, in convening an International 
Congress to consider the partial reduction of the armies 
and navies of the world, the amelioration of the most 
flagrant of the cruelties of war and the substitution so 
far as practicable of arbitration for war, was warmly 
approved and commended by the Association. A com¬ 
mittee of three members of the Association was 
appointed to formulate and present an appropriate 
address, in approval of such action and in furtherance of 
International Arbitration, each to the Emperor of Rus¬ 
sia and the President of the United States, and to accom¬ 
pany such addresses with a record of the previous action 
of the Association on said subject. 

The President of the Association subsequently 
appointed W. Martin Jones, of Rochester, Edward G. 
Whitaker, of New York, and William D. Veeder, of 
Brooklyn, such committee. The foregoing address and 
accompanying papers are submitted in comformity with 
said action. 
















« 












I 












t 

























s 



















•f 


» 


- T '• • • 




f 


V 




I 





< 









1 


•> 





*■ 




. 



















e 







/ 







